You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
5

[–] fixedpoint 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

There is a well-tested model (ΛCDM ) describing expansion of the Universe and numerically connecting it to various stuff that we can observe and measure.

Unless you convert your "light actually loses energy to space" into a verifiable model, this is no different from "elves cause expansion of Universe". Make a verifiable hypothesis, then come up with an experiment to test it. Then you can answer your own question.

0
0

[–] cobeast [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Is it preferable to break the conservation of mass (as yes, light that is redshifted has lost energy) at the universal scale and create dark energy from nothing?

0
4

[–] china_troll 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can look at a theory and think to yourself, meh, I can create statements in the similar form, and mine is probably just as legit.

That works in fields like gender study and economic "science". Everybody is bullshitting, so your bullshit is just as valid as anyone's. The trick is to get an institutional position so that your bullshit is now academic bullshit. And who decides you can get that position? The current bullshitters who are already in the position. If your bullshit helps their bullshit, you'll have a chance. And if you get a shitprize like Nobel Economics, you become a shitlord; it doesn't matter you have zero/negative prediction power on the subject you profess in.

Scientific fields are a little better than that. The purest field is mathematics; it doesn't matter who you are or what you say, your work can be judged objectively as right or wrong. The worst field is biology; these lab rats are pretty much playing alchemy, but that's not their fault.

The physics field, or most of it, is all right. We have a huge body of physics theories that together explain the observable universe in a quantified manner to a very accurate degree. Physicists, or most of them, are good people; nothing delights them more than having a little better insight into how the universe works. And the standard to decide which theory is better is mostly objective, quantified, structured and logical. There is very little room for shitposting:)

I'm in no way shitting on your questions; we are all laymen with random entertaining thoughts. Your "theory" is not actionable to physicists, they don't know what you are talking about. A physic theory has to be formalized; it has to fit with other verified theories; or if your theory fundamentally disrupts current theories, it has to provide new explanations to all known observations explainable by the ensemble of previous theories. You can't throw in a random informal statement on an isolated physics phenomena, it's meaningless.

And trust me, there are really really, REALLY, smart physicists having very very VERY deep and wide thoughts on the universe, covering all crazy ideas that can be humanly conjured up. Our chance of helping them with an idea is less than the chance a cat helps to type a master piece novel.

(no need to shit on my rants; I know I'm shitposting, just to entertain myself)

0
0

[–] fixedpoint 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Everything is fine as long as it's expressed in formulas that let us calculate predictions and compare to observations. If we can describe in detail how exactly energy is not conserved, and it matches observations - so be it.

See here for how energy is not conserved and for the answer to your specific redshift question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe